## Facts

- The Coast Guard operated the Chandeleur Island lighthouse as a navigational aid.
- On October 1, 1951, a tug towing a loaded barge went aground on Chandeleur Island, and seawater damaged the cargo (claimed loss: $62,659.70).
- The claim alleged the grounding resulted solely from the lighthouse light being out due to negligent inspection and maintenance, including failure to maintain the battery/sun relay system, inadequate inspection, failure to discover the outage, and failure to repair or warn mariners.
- The claimants sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), seeking money damages for property loss caused by alleged negligence of Coast Guard personnel.

## Issues

1. Whether the FTCA permits liability for negligence in operating and maintaining a lighthouse, even though lighthouse operation is a function historically performed by government.
2. Whether the FTCA’s “private individual under like circumstances” language excludes liability for negligent conduct in activities in which private persons do not typically engage.
3. Whether, after deciding to operate a lighthouse, the government owes a duty of due care to those who foreseeably rely on the light, including duties to maintain, detect outages, and repair or warn.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that the United States may be liable under the FTCA for negligent operation and maintenance of a lighthouse.
- The Court rejected a “governmental function” immunity limitation on FTCA liability.
- The Court concluded that once the government undertakes to operate a lighthouse and reliance is foreseeable, it must use due care to keep the light in working order and, if extinguished, to discover the outage and repair or provide warning.
- The Court treated the decision to establish a lighthouse as discretionary, but negligent maintenance as operational conduct subject to FTCA liability.

## Legal Principles

- FTCA liability is not barred merely because the negligent conduct occurs in a service typically performed only by government; the “like circumstances” inquiry looks to an analogous private undertaking rather than identical private activity.
- The FTCA does not incorporate a general “governmental vs. nongovernmental” (or governmental vs. proprietary) function distinction as a categorical immunity rule.
- When the government voluntarily provides a service that induces foreseeable reliance, it has a duty to exercise due care in performing that service and may be liable for negligent performance causing harm.
- The discretionary-function concept may protect policy-level choices (e.g., whether to provide a lighthouse), but not negligent execution of routine operational tasks (e.g., inspection, maintenance, repair, and warning).

## Conclusion

The Court held that the FTCA permits suits for operational negligence in maintaining a lighthouse and that the government, having undertaken to provide the navigational light, owed mariners a duty of due care to keep it functioning or to timely repair it or warn when it was not working.


Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61 (1955)